Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Employment Br ief
Spr ing 2018
3 Welcome
4 Shared Paretnal Leave & Discrimination
6 PILON
8 Disability Discrimination
10 Effective Date of Termination
12 GDPR is Here
14 Upcoming Legislation
16 Legal Updates & Seminars
In this issue
Katie Maguire l Solicitor020 7880 [email protected]
Kirsty Thompson l Partner020 7065 [email protected]
Ronnie Tong l Partner020 7880 [email protected]
Jane Bowen l Solicitor020 7880 [email protected]
Welcome
Welcome to our latest round up of employment law and cases. In this edition we consider the important
judgment relating to shared parental leave and whether it is discriminatory to pay enhanced maternity pay
but only statutory shared parental pay. We have also considered the important changes in relation to the tax
treatment of payment in lieu of notice and the latest cases on perceived discrimination and the effective date
of termination. Finally we have also issued some practical guidance for employers on the GDPR.
If you have any questions on the matters raised in this briefing please speak to your usual contact in the
Employment & Pensions Team.
Amy Ling l Trainee Solicitor020 7880 [email protected]
3
David Malamatenios l Solicitor020 7880 [email protected]
In two key cases, the Employment Appeal Tribunal has confirmed that it is not directly discriminatory to pay enhanced maternity pay but only statutory shared parental leave pay. However, there is a risk that such a practice could be indirectly discriminatory.
Direct Discrimination: Ali v Capita
Mr Ali’s wife suffered from post natal depression and had
been advised to return to work to deal with this. Mrs Ali
transferred the balance of her maternity leave to Mr Ali
under the statutory shared parental leave scheme. Under
Capita’s shared parental leave policy, Mr Ali was allowed to
take two weeks’ fully-paid paternity leave following the birth
of his child, followed by a number of weeks’ annual leave.
Mr Ali asked Capita for his shared parental leave pay to be
enhanced and for him to be paid the same higher rate as
a woman on maternity leave. He raised a grievance which
was rejected. When this was refused, he then issued
proceedings claiming both direct and indirect discrimination.
At first instance, the employment tribunal agreed that
he should have the same entitlement as female staff
members on maternity leave, since failure to match a
mother’s entitlement in these circumstances amounted
to unlawful direct sex discrimination. In reaching this
decision the tribunal compared Mr Ali to a woman on
maternity leave. The tribunal also rejected the argument
put forward by Capita that s.13(6)(b) of the Equality
Act 2010 (“the special protection provision” afforded
to women in connection with pregnancy or childbirth,
4
Shared Parental Leave &
Discrimination
Employment Brief
which allows more favourable treatment) could protect
an employer from a challenge to enhanced maternity pay.
Capita appealed the decision to the Employment
Appeal Tribunal (EAT) who agreed with them and
overturned the decision of the employment tribunal.
The EAT held that the tribunal should have compared
Mr Ali to a female partner of a birth mother who was
taking shared parental leave, and not to a woman taking
maternity leave. Mr Ali was unable to compare himself
to a female on maternity leave because there was a
material difference in the two types of leave. The purpose
of maternity leave and pay was to protect the health of
the mother following birth whereas shared parental leave
was purely a childcare measure. The EAT also agreed
with Capita that the special protection provision under
s.13(6)(b) of the Equality Act applied making it lawful to
afford more favourable treatment to pregnant women.
Many employers that do not duplicate maternity leave
provisions in their shared parental leave provisions will
welcome this outcome. However, it remains possible that a
policy that paying different rates for shared parental leave
and maternity leave is indirectly discriminatory. This issue
was addressed by the EAT in another recent case.
Indirect Discrimination: Hextall v Chief Constable of
Leicestershire Police
Like the above case, Hextall involved a father who was not
paid enhanced pay during a three month period of shared
parental leave. He argued a female police constable on
maternity leave would have received full pay over the period
he took shared parental leave and this was both directly
and indirectly discriminatory. The employment tribunal
dismissed both claims of direct and indirect discrimination,
following the same reasoning as above that a man taking
shared parental leave cannot compare himself to a woman
taking maternity leave.
Mr Hextall appealed to the EAT. The EAT found that the
tribunal had erred in applying a direct discrimination
comparator (as in a woman on maternity leave) to an indirect
discrimination claim. Assessing an indirect discrimination
claim involves considering whether a policy, condition,
or precedent (PCP) is a practice which has the effect of
putting those with a particular protected characteristic at a
disadvantage.
The EAT said: “It is the resultant disadvantage which must be
considered in deciding a claim of indirect discrimination……
The disadvantage in this case was that the only option for
men wishing to take leave after the birth of their child was to
take SPL at the statutory rate. However, women wishing to
take such leave had the possibility of taking maternity leave
at full pay.”
The EAT remitted the decision on the indirect discrimination
claim to a new employment tribunal to reconsider, and
examine whether the practice, if found to be discriminatory,
can be justified.
Comment
Whilst the question of whether different rates of maternity
and shared parental leave pay is direct discrimination now
appears settled, until the case of Hextall is decided there
remains uncertainty as to whether this may still be indirectly
discriminatory.
The approach of the EAT in Hextall suggests that a
successful indirect discrimination claim is now more likely
and represents a risk to employers who have different
approaches to maternity and shared parental leave pay.
However, it is worth remembering that even where a
PCP is found to put a particular group at a disadvantage,
employers can still successfully defend any claim if they are
able to show that that the policy of paying different rates is
a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
Employers therefore need to consider how any difference
can be justified. For example, an employer could argue that
the enhanced rights to full pay of a woman in maternity leave
is justifiable on the basis of preserving her health following
pregnancy and the well-being of her child. Whether or not
such an argument would succeed will depend on the facts
of the case.
5
Payment in Lieu of Notice (PILON)
Taxation of Termination Payments.
From April this year, all payments in lieu of notice (PILON)
are now subject to tax.
This change is designed, in the words of the government,
to “simplify and tighten” the rules around the taxation of
termination payments and represents a significant change
from the previous position where different arrangements
applied depending on whether there was a PILON clause
in the employee’s contract.
Taxation of PILON The Previous Regime
Under the previous regime where there was a clause within
an employee’s contract allowing for the payment of PILON,
the PILON payment was taxed as earnings. This was
because it was a payment derived from the employment
contract.
On the other hand, where there was no PILON clause
in the contract and the employer forced a employee to
take pay in lieu of notice, then the PILON payment was
generally regarded by HMRC as damages for breach of
contract (the breach being the employee’s contractual
right to work his notice period) rather than as a true PILON
payment. Damages are given a different taxation treatment
by HMRC and are tax free up to a limit of £30,000 in any
single tax year. This meant that the PILON payment in such
cases could usually be made to the employee without the
deduction of any tax up to the limit of £30,000.
However, there were exceptions to this which could cause
confusion and uncertainty. For example, if there was a
custom and precedent on the part of the employer to
deduct tax from PILON payments even when there was
no PILON clause in the contract, then HMRC could take
6
Employment Brief
7
the position that an implied contractual right to PILON had
arisen and that the payment was taxable regardless. This
could cause difficulties in settlement negotiations where
the employer would want to deduct tax when there was
no PILON clause whilst the employee would insist that the
payment should be made gross.
In such cases the employer would usually insist on an
indemnity from the employee in a settlement agreement. But
indemnities are unsatisfactory in many ways – the employer
would have to enforce it, if necessary through the courts,
and even then there was no guarantee that the employee
would have the resources to pay.
The New Regime
The new position is that all PILON payments will now
be subject to income tax and employee Class 1 NICs
regardless of whether or not there is an express PILON
clause in the contract.
This change essentially splits termination payments into two
elements.
The first element is known as “post-employment notice
pay” (PENP). This represents the amount of basic pay the
employee will not receive because their employment was
terminated without full or proper notice being given. This
element will be subject to income tax and employee Class
1 NICs.
The legislation sets out a complex statutory formula to
calculate the PENP, which involves carrying out calculations
to establish the employee’s basic pay, the amount of the
notice period outstanding following the termination date
and the number of days in the employee’s last pay period.
Once PENP has been calculated, any contractual PILON
payment can be deducted to give the final taxable sum.
There is not yet any HMRC guidance on how to perform the
PENP calculation. At present appears the PENP only takes
into account basic pay, and that bonus and commission
payments are not included. HMRC has promised that
further details of how and when the PENP calculation should
be applied will become available in due course.
The second element is the remaining balance of the
termination payment. The balance of the payment is tax free
up to £30,000 (provided that it is an ex gratia payment).
Any excess over £30,000 will be subject to income tax.
Employees will continue to benefit from an unlimited NIC
exemption for payments related to the termination of
employment, so the whole of the balance of the payment
will be free from Class 1 NICs.
The new rules will not apply to statutory redundancy
payments, which can still be made tax-free in their entirety.
For example:
• An employee’s employment is terminated without notice.
The employee is paid £5,000 per month basic pay, they
have a 3 month notice period and there is no PILON
clause in the contract. The employee receives £35,000
compensation on termination.
• Under the old regime, £30,000 of the payment would have
qualified for the whole tax free exemption. Income tax would
have been due on the balance of £5,000 compensation
which went over the £30,000 tax free limit.
• Under the new regime, income tax and NICs (both
employer and employee) are due on the PENP of £15,000.
The balance of £20,000 qualifies for the £30,000 exemption.
The Way Forward
Employers with no PILON clauses in their standard
contracts may now want to consider including them, as
there is no potential tax advantage in not including the
clause. Employers may also wish to consider including a
contractual PILON clause, as they will still be in breach of
contract if they pay a PILON payment where there is no
clause in the contract. Being in breach of the employee’s
contract makes it difficult to enforce other terms of the
contract, such as restrictive covenants.
Employers still have the option of insisting an employee
work their notice, or placing them on garden leave for their
notice period.
Perceived Disability Discrimination
Disability under the Equality Act
A person is disabled for the purposes of the Equality
Act 2010 (‘the Act’) if they have a physical or mental
impairment and that impairment has a substantial and long-
term adverse effect on that person’s ability to carry out
normal day-to-day activities. This means that just having a
particular medical condition does not automatically mean
that a person is disabled as the effect on their abilities
must be considered.
However, progressive conditions do fall under the definition
of disability. These are conditions which have some
impairment or effect on a person’s day to day activities
currently and are likely to have a substantial adverse effect
in the future.
If an employer treats an employee or applicant less
favourably because of a disability, this will be in breach
of the Act. They will also be in breach should they treat
an employee less favourably because they perceive that
person to have a disability, even if that person does not
actually have a disability.
The Facts
Ms Coffey was a serving police officer with Wiltshire
Constabulary. During the medical examination required as
part of her application to become a PC, it was discovered
that she suffered from a type of hearing loss. Although
overall her hearing was found to fall below the police
National Recruitment Standards, Ms Coffey passed a
practical functionality test and worked on front-line duty in
Wiltshire with no side-effects or restrictions.
In 2013 Ms Coffey applied to transfer to Norfolk
Constabulary (‘Norfolk’). A medical assessment found
that she still had significant hearing loss in both ears
and was just outside the standards for recruitment, but
recommended that as she had been undertaking an
operational police role with no issues that an at-work test
should be conducted. The decision maker for Norfolk, an
ACI Hooper, rejected the recommendation for a practical
test and declined Ms Coffey’s application on the basis that
her hearing was below the medical standard.
Ms Coffey brought a claim against Norfolk for direct
discrimination on the grounds of perceived disability, i.e
that another applicant for transfer who had the same
abilities as Ms Coffey but was not perceived as disabled
would have been treated differently.
Tribunal Decision
At first instance, the tribunal found that ACI Hooper had
directly discriminated against Ms Coffey in refusing her
application to transfer on the basis she was perceived to
have a disability. Ms Coffey’s transfer had been refused
on the basis of assumptions as to the effect Ms Coffey’s
condition would have on her, including that she would
The case of The Chief Constable of Norfolk v Coffey is an important reminder that an
individual does not always have to have a particular protected characteristic in order to
be discriminated against on the basis of that characteristic. In the first case of this kind,
a police officer was found to have been discriminated against because of a perceived
rather than actual disability.
8
Employment Brief
become an officer only capable of restricted duties, rather
than on an assessment of her actual abilities. Norfolk
appealed this finding to the Employment Appeals Tribunal
(‘EAT’).
Decision on Appeal
On appeal, Norfolk argued that the tribunal had considered
that ACI Hooper had perceived Ms Coffey would potentially
become disabled in the future and this was not the correct
test to apply. ACI Hooper had not perceived Ms Coffey’s
hearing loss to have a substantial and adverse effect on
her day to day duties so did not perceive her as disabled.
Ms Coffey simply did not meet the standards on hearing for
recruitment.
However, the EAT disagreed. Although the tribunal at
first instance had not explicitly referred to progressive
conditions, it was clear that ACI Hooper had perceived Ms
Coffey to have a condition which was likely to progress with
time to the point where she would be on restricted duties
not merely that she might potentially develop a disability in
the future. As progressive conditions fall under the definition
of disability, ACI Hooper had directly discriminated against
Ms Coffey on the grounds of perceived disability.
Comment
The above is the first case to come to the EAT regarding
perceived disability discrimination under the Act. As it
demonstrates, employers should ensure decisions affecting
an employee or applicant are based on an individual
assessment of their abilities and not any stereotypical
assumptions about what the implications of a particular
medical condition may be. Any guidance or recruitment
standards should reflect this.
It is also advisable for medical evidence to be obtained
where possible to inform decisions about recruitment where
an applicant has a condition which may affect their ability to
perform the duties of the role, as one of the key flaws in the
decision making in this case was that the decision was not
based on the findings of a functionality test, particularly when
this had been recommended by medical professionals.
Further, where a job applicant does have a condition which
is likely to prevent them from fulfilling the duties of that role
in future, employers should first consider if it is possible
for that employee to still serve in that role for a reasonable
amount of time.
9
Effective Date of Termination:
Cosmeceuticals Limited v Parkin
When does a dismissal occur?
Under the Employment Rights Act 1996, an employee will
be dismissed if their contract is terminated by the employer,
with or without notice.
In assessing whether a dismissal has occurred, the
tribunal will consider whether the employee’s contract has
been withdrawn or removed from them and whether this
has been communicated to the employee. For example,
removing an employee from the payroll, issuing a P45 or
ending the current post in order to offer a new position
have all been found to amount to dismissals.
Although the employer’s conduct or words in terminating
the contract does not have to be completely unambiguous,
the tribunal will take into account whether an objective
observer would consider the employee had been
dismissed.
The Effective Date of Termination
If an employee was dismissed with notice, then the
effective date of termination (EDT) will be the date on which
the notice expires (as long as this notice is at least the
statutory minimum).
However, if an employee is dismissed without notice, then
the EDT will be the date on which the termination takes
effect, i.e the date that the employee is informed they are
dismissed. This is the case even if dismissal without notice
is in breach of the employment contract.
The EDT is important as it is used to calculated a Claimant’s
period of continuous employment and to determine
the date from which limitation will run in cases of unfair
dismissal.
As the EDT is a statutory concept, it is not open to parties
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has confirmed that the effective date of termination of
an employee who is summarily dismissed and then given notice will be the date of the
summary dismissal and not when the notice expires.
10
Employment Brief
11
to agree that an alternative date applies. This was the case
in Cosmeceuticals v Parkin, where a re-assessment of the
EDT by the tribunal from meant that the Claimant’s claim for
unfair dismissal had in fact been brought out of time.
Background
Ms Parkin was employed by Cosmeceuticals Limited,
a manufacturer and distributor of skincare and makeup
products, as a Managing Director from June 2009.
Following a period of poor performance, Ms Parkin agreed
to go on a 2 month sabbatical to attend to some personal
issues. During her absence, the company became further
concerned about her performance and on her return to
work on 1 September 2015 the company’s Chairman, Mr
Sullivan, raised these performance concerns and told Ms
Parkin she could not return to her role.
Ms Parkin was then placed on garden leave and on 29
September 2015 Mr Sullivan wrote to Ms Parkin “for clarity”
giving her notice of the termination of her employment. The
notice expired on 23 October 2015.
Ms Parkin then brought a claim for unfair dismissal in the
employment tribunal.
At first instance, the tribunal found Ms Parkin’s dismissal
had been unfair. Although there was a genuine belief that
she had been unable to perform her role at the required
level, she had not been given the opportunity to put forward
her case as to the performance issues in question nor
advised that poor performance could lead to her dismissal.
Although the tribunal found Ms Parkin had been dismissed
on 1st September 2015, it found the EDT was the 23rd
October 2015.
Cosmeceuticals appealed to the Employment Appeals
Tribunal (EAT) on the basis that the tribunal had committed
an error in law in finding the dismissal took place on 1st
September but the EDT fell on the later date.
Decision at the EAT
In response to her former employer’s appeal, Ms Parkin
pointed to the fact that it had previously been agreed
between the parties that the EDT was 23rd October. She
argued Mr Sullivan had merely made the decision to dismiss
on 1st September and there had been no finding that this
had actually been communicated to her in the meeting on
that date.
However, the EAT disagreed. Ms Parkin had been dismissed
on 1st September as this was when her employer made
clear to her that her existing contract of employment had
ended, notwithstanding the later serving of notice upon her.
It was therefore not open for the tribunal to decide the EDT
was a later date than this.
Importance of getting the EDT right
The EAT’s decision is important because Ms Parkin had
served her claim less than 3 months after 23rd October
2015 but more than 3 months from 1st September
2015, meaning that the tribunal changing the EDT to 1st
September meant her claim was out of time.
This demonstrates how what can seem like an otherwise
quite technical point can have significant implications. If the
Respondent had determined the EDT was 1st September
upon receipt of the claim they could have potentially avoided
a full merits hearing by arguing at the preliminary stage the
tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear Ms Parkin’s claims on
the basis they were out of time. For Ms Parkin’s claim to
now be considered, she will need to explain why it was not
reasonable or practical for her to have brought her claim in
time.
As this case demonstrates, it is essential that employers
handle any termination of employment carefully and that
clear records are kept of any meetings in the run up to
dismissal so that the EDT can be accurately calculated.
GDPR is here
Data Protection and Retention Policies
The GDPR makes wide ranging changes to the basic data
principles and the rights of individuals in relation to data. The
Data Protection Act 2018, also brought into law on 25 May,
sits alongside and expands on some areas of the GDPR.
This means that data protection policies written to comply
with the Data Protection Act 1998 will need to be updated.
For example, any internal data protection policies will need
to replace reference to the principles under the 1998 Act
with the principles under the GDPR and should cover the
bases on which the organisation will process personal and
sensitive information.
Additionally, any internal data protection policy should cover
how the employer will deal with criminal records information
relating to staff, the obligations on employees to comply
with the policy and consequences for failing to do so, and
who employees should contact if they wish to exercise
any of their rights or to report a data protection breach.
On 25 May 2018 the much awaited GDPR came into force. This piece of EU legislation
will have a significant impact on the requirements employers must fulfil in order to
lawfully collect and process personal data about their employees.
It’s therefore important that employers are not only aware of the changes and new rights
for data subjects, but put in place key documents required to demonstrate compliance.
12
Employment Brief
13
It is also important that, either within the data protection
policy or as a stand-alone document employers have a
clear retention schedule relating to the documents they
process. For each document processed, this schedule
should specify either how long this document will be kept for
or what test will be applied to calculate when the document
is no longer needed and can be destroyed. For example,
many employment related documents can be destroyed 6
years after the employment has terminated, as this is the
limitation period for any contract based claims in the county
court.
Privacy Notices
Many organisations will be familiar with using privacy or
‘fair processing’ notices for customers, which informs them
what data will be collected and how this will be processed.
In order to comply with the requirements under the GDPR
that employers process data fairly and transparently all
current and prospective employees should now also be
issued with privacy notices.
These notices should set out:
• what data is collected and why;
• how the data will be collected;
• how the data will be used;
• who the data may be shared with;
• how long the data will be kept for;
• where the data will be held; and,
• whether the data will be transferred outside the EEA.
Information collected is likely to include names and contact
details of the employee, their emergency contacts, their
bank account details, information about grievances involving
or about the employee, and sickness/absence records. It’s
important that each type of data and reason for processing
is listed as it won’t be possible to use “catch all” clauses to
cover anything that the privacy notice doesn’t explicitly list.
For prospective employees, privacy notices can be
included with the standard information pack whilst existing
employees can be signposted to an accessible copy of the
notice, such as on the organisation’s intranet.
Agreements with Third Parties
There are many circumstances in which personal data of
employees may be shared with third parties, such as payroll
or pension providers. Under the GDPR, data controllers
must have a written contract with third parties they share
data with under which the third party gives guarantees that
they will act in accordance with the GDPR.
Agreements with third parties should therefore specify:
• the third party will only process the data provided on the
employer’s written instructions;
• employees of the third party and other persons who will
process the data have a duty of confidentiality;
• the third party will assist the employer in dealing with subject
access requests and circumstances in which individuals
exercise their rights (such as the right of rectification);
• the third party will notify the employer of any data breach;
• the third party will delete or return all personal data at
the end of the contract, and submit to any audits and
inspections as requested by the employer; and,
• sub-processors may only be engaged by the third party
with the employer’s consent.
Where contracts with third party processors currently
do not cover the above, then you may wish to consider
varying these agreements or entering into an additional
data processing agreement. In future it is likely that industry
standards or kite marks will develop to assist in identifying
suppliers which are compliant with these requirements.
If you would like any assistance in reviewing or preparing
any of the documents mentioned above to comply with the
GDPR, please contact your usual contact in the Employment
and Pensions team.
14
Upcoming LegislationUpcoming Legislation
Summary Legislation Date due to come into force
Details
National Minimum
Wage
National Minimun (Amendment) Regulations 2018
1 April 2018 Increases to the rate of national minimum wage. Rates are now as follows:• National living wage is £7.83• Standard adult rate is £7.38• Development rate is £5.90• Young workers rate is £4.20• Apprentice rate is £3.70
Damages for Injury to
Feelings
6 April 2018 The Vento bands for awards to injuries to feelings have been uprated in line with the Retail Price Index. From 6 April 2018 the following bands will apply:• Lower band of £900 to £8,600• Middle band of £8,600 to £25,700• Upper band of £25,700 to £42,900
Taxation of PILON payments
6 April 2018 All payments in lieu of notice are to be treated as earnings subject to tax and class 1 NICs. The tax exemption for injury does not apply to injury for feelings.
Pensions Auto-enrolment
6 April 2018 The employer minimum contribution has risen to 2% and the total minimum contribution has risen to 5%. Employees must contribute at least 3%.
Statutory Maternity and Aportion Pay, Statutory Sick Pay
6 April 2018 The rates for statutory maternity, paternity, adoption and shared parental pay have been increased. The weekly rate is now £145.18 Statutory Sick Pay has increased to £92.05 per week.
Compensation in the Employment Tribunal
6 April 2018 The compensation limits and minimum awards payable to a Claimant have been increased:• The maximum compensatory award for unfair dismissal is £83,682• A week’s pay to calculate statutory redundancy payments and the basic award for unfair dismissal is £508The new rates will apply where the ‘appropriate date’ for a claim is on or after 6 April 2018.
Employment Allowance
April 2018 Employers cannot claim employment allowance for one year if they receive a civil penalty for employing an illegal worker.
15
Summary Legislation Date due to come into force
Details
Taylor Review May 2018 Following the findings of the Taylor review, the government launched a number of consultations into worker’s rights, including treatment of agency workers. The consultation closed on 9 May 2018.
Data Protection General Data Protection Regulation 25 May 2018 Significant new piece of EU legislation governing data protection. There will be a range of changes to how employers process personal and sensitive personal data, and additional requirements to demonstrate compliance.
Data Protection Data Protection Act 2018 2018 Replaces the Data Protection Act 1998 to provide a legal framework for data protection which supplements the GDPR. Provides some additional grounds under which data can be processed in addition to those under the GPDR.
Gender Pay Gap- Enforcement
June 2018 The EHRC will commence investigations into those employers who failed to publish their gender pay gap report in April 2018.
Trade Secrets Trade Secrets Directive 2016/943 June 2018 New rules on the protection against unlawful acquisition, disclosure and use of trade secrets for all EU members.
Parental Bereavement Leave
8 June 2018 A consultation into parental bereavement leave and pay was launched on 28 March 2018, seeking views on who should be entitled to take the leave, how the leave should be taken and what evidence must be provided. The consultation closes on 8 June.
Childcare Vouchers 5 October 2018 Employer backed Childcare Voucher schemes will close to new applicants. Eligible employees will be able to take advantage of the Tax-Free Childcare government backed scheme. The scheme was originally due to close on 6 April 2018 but the deadline has been extended.
Itemised Pay Slips Employment Rights Act 1996 (Itemised Pay Statement) (Amendment) (No 2) Order 2018
Employment Rights Act 1996 (Itemised Pay Statement) (Amendment) Order 2018
6 April 2019 All workers will have a right to an itemised pay statement and to enforce that right in the employment tribunal. The payslips must show the number of hours paid for where a worker is paid on an hourly rate basis.
Taxation of Termination Payments
6 April 2019 All termination payments above £30,000 will be subject to class 1A NICs (employer liability only).
Legal updates and seminars
Edited by: Nick Billingham Head Office: 30 Finsbury Circus, London EC2M 7DT Further copies: Marketing Department on t: 020 7628 7576, or email [email protected] or via our website at www.devonshires.com
Devonshires has taken all reasonable precautions to ensure that information contained in this document is materially accurate however this
document is not intended to be legally comprehensive and therefore no action should be taken on matters covered in this document without
taking full legal advice.
30 Finsbury Circus, London EC2M 7DT Further copies: Marketing Department on t: 020 7628 7576, or email [email protected] or via our website at www.devonshires.com
Devonshires Solicitors has taken all reasonable precautions to ensure that information contained in this document is materially accurate however
this document is not intended to be legally comprehensive and therefore no action should be taken on matters covered in this document without
taking full legal advice.
Devonshires Solicitors produce a wide range of briefings and legal updates for clients as well as running comprehensive seminar programmes.
If you would like to receive legal updates and seminar invitations please visit our website on the link below.
http://www.devonshires.com/join-mailing-list
16
30 Finsbury Circus, London EC2M 7DT t: 020 7628 7576 f: 0870 608 9390www.devonshires.com
